Template talk:Articletype
Some things Some things: * The image for production POV should remain Dr. Wykoff. For all the reasons given in the old argument about it; Wykoff is an interesting reference, and very relevant one considering what Memory Alpha is. Special and interesting > bland and generic. * The bar at the top + heading + disambig + quotes + spoiler + sitenotice puts the sidebar too low on the page. Looks terrible. Some way needs to be found to compress all that. When I originally had this idea a couple years ago and Cid shot the whole thing down, I just wanted the little boxes like the old realworld template. If we go back to that form, it fixes the height problem, and we can go back to Wykoff. I'm not convinced that the giant bar at the top is so useful to be worth scrolling past it on every article. --bp 16:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC) One other thing: the js that moves the bar to the top should be at the bottom of the page, not at the top waiting for onload. Just considering that the page is 250K before adding any images and stuff, it is a real jolt for the bar to jump up after you wait for the everything to load, especially on long articles. --bp 16:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC) :This thing is really ugly. Why is it so big? Where was the discussion for the change? It pushes the content down as bad as an ad. — Morder 18:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC) ::I don't necessarily object to its being changed, but I don't recall hearing about this before now. I did think it was better being smaller.--31dot 18:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC) :It's just quite a major change to not even have a discussion about... — Morder 18:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC) :::OK, some quick responses to that: :::*"Wykoff image" - discussion here, please: File talk:Articletype realworld.png :::*"on every article" - far from it, a huge majority of in-universe articles will stay bar-free. :::*"no discussion" - this was linked to on the "how to call the new universe" TF-page. Since simple suggestions usually get no or limited response around here, I was being bold and already changed one template ( ) to make use of this. It is a one-click action to revert this, so don't complain too much about it. However, feel free to add constructive criticism. :) :::*"it's too big & why was it changed at all" - I think a change to was long overdue, because its placement never really worked with the new skin. It's that big so that the image used is recognizable at all. I believe it needs to be recognizable, because identifying different article types got more important with the timeline change of the new movie. :::-- Cid Highwind 18:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC) ::::The call to the sidebar template should be the very first item on a page. Disambiguation links, quotes, etc. should all go after the sidebar template, exactly for the reason bp notes. There's not much we can do about the full-width templates like spoiler or articletype, though, and the site notice is always at the top, when there is one. I don't think we'd want to move the site notice, anyway. -- Renegade54 19:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC) Agree except for realworld which I thought should come before the sidebar. The old style realworld shared its height with the article heading so it didn't add any "overhead". I thought the real world tag in the text needed to be at the top, so when edited it was obvious that this article is different, among other reasons. --bp 19:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC) ::::Yep, I agree that the realworld template should be at the top. Like you said, the old one didn't push the article down. Most of the realworld sidebars had the realworld template in them, so a separate realworld call wasn't really necessary (but didn't hurt). -- Renegade54 19:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC) :::::No real comments on the style as yet. But about half of the realworld sidebar templates had the realworld template built in. Half didn't. When two realworlds were on a page, the old style was actually drawing it twice. One over the other. It wasn't obvious. With the CSS changes and the new style... it was breaking stuff all over, thus the mass removal of "realworld" from the sidebars and proper addition into articles. Just as an aside... -- sulfur 20:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC) :::Not sure what template call order has to do with any of this, but I think it should at least somewhat resemble the order in which the resulting elements will be placed on the output page. This is what has been done before, and the new template variant doesn't change it one bit. Another thing unchanged by the new variant is the fact that the resulting box is placed "outside" of the article. This makes sense, because its content isn't really part of the article, but instead meta-information about the article. -- Cid Highwind 00:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC) ::::::I personally think this is an excellent idea and really well done. :-) I love the MU one especially.– Cleanse 05:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Implementation Now that these templates are being implemented for the MU and the new timeline, I just need to ask if they are "in universe" too. If the are, then we could probably remove the "In the Mirror Universe...." preface that usually starts those articles.--31dot 19:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Also, should the MU tag be put in articles in which only a portion of it is relevant to the MU?--31dot 20:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC) :I would say 'no' just like we shouldn't put the on articles that only partially deal with the new timeline. — Morder 20:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC) ::Quick question about the AT|XX template, why is the image from a parallel universe and it links to the alternate timeline page? (Don't get me wrong, I love the image.) Also, not really sure where this gos beyond the pages I already tagged. - Archduk3 00:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC) :::The idea I initially had was for this subtemplate to be used on articles that describe events from different timelines - to let the reader know about the fact that there's a necessary break of POV in the article. I believe the image properly depicts that - it has multiple Enterprises where there should only be one, just like the article would have multiple POVs instead of a single one. Other pages to use this one on might be some of the calendar articles, especially the years between 2233 and 2258. Feel free to further discuss the possible use of the template first, though, as there hasn't been much discussion about this specific subtemplate until now... -- Cid Highwind 08:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC) :::And, re: the original question. I wouldn't consider these templates "in-universe", but rather the opposite. All of the available subtemplates are basically notes from the editor directed at the reader, so that the reader knows what to expect from the article that follows: :::*RW means: "don't expect in-universe, but production POV stuff." :::*NT means: "expect in-universe stuff written from a POV." :::The exact meaning of the "MU note" might actually be up for debate. Do we want to change our POV to that of the mirror universe, or do we want to write an article in the standard POV, about another reality that has been observed by "main timeline" people. The latter is what we do at the moment, and seems the better of the alternatives IMO... -- Cid Highwind ::::For the mirror universe, I think we should continue to use the POV we currently do, i.e that of an alternate universe. We do still have the mu "language" version of MA for mirror universe articles written from a POV within the mirror universe. -- Renegade54 13:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC) :Does an Archivist exist in all universe's simultaneously? Does he transcend space and time? Depending on that answer it would tell us how we should write our POV for MU and NT and so forth... — Morder 13:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC) ::::I think our assumption is that the Archivists exist in the prime universe, maintaining the prime universe Memory Alpha repository, at some point in the distant future. On MA/mu, it would be the same, except Archivists would exist in that universe. -- Renegade54 13:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC) :::Yes, that has been the working hypothesis so far - however, it's a construct helping us in writing the encyclopedia, not the goal of the writing itself. I believe that the only sensible way to write this encyclopedia with in mind is to have two in-universe POVs - one for prime timeline articles, and another one for new timeline information - which has been the trigger for this template. The others, especially MU and XX, have been an afterthought to this, and may or may not be as useful as the others. -- Cid Highwind 14:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC) ::::: If we are going to do this, we might wish to establish something for all alternate timeline related articles, as it seems there is something of a fourth option that doesn't apply to the above. Molly would be an example of an article of someone created due to a timeline split (just not the one we recognize) in this tl, who doesn't live in the mirror universe, nor existed in multiple timelines... --Alan 22:15, December 12, 2009 (UTC) :::But Molly is a person that is known to inhabitants of the "main" timeline, so the POV of the article can be that of any other standard article. So, while I generally agree that a disclaimer for articles written from the POV of a "non-main" timeline might be a good thing to have (if such articles exist), I think this is not a proper example for it. -- Cid Highwind 16:16, December 13, 2009 (UTC) how make band ? on MA-fr we would like to make same band, but how write on picture like yours ? this is my final work fr:Modèle:UniversMiroir(B) I don't understand how you made it. can I know your codes / datas for make it ? and how place the final image/side on the middle page like for USS Defiant (NCC-1764) ? Thank you C-IMZADI-4 21:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC) :It's based on CSS stuff primarily to be honest. That's what does the heavy lifting. -- sulfur 21:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC) so I can't make like you ? C-IMZADI-4 20:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC) ::I added the necessary stuff to your fr:Mediawiki:Common.css and fr:Mediawiki:Common.js, as well as changing your template page to the content of the page here. You will have to wait some time, or force a complete page reload in your browser, but it should become visible eventually. See a test on my user page, fr:User:Cid Highwind. -- Cid Highwind 21:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC) thank you, so I can use same codes for "alternate reality" and "real world" or your changing makes for all ??? bands will be in french ??? (sorry, now I Disconnect and I'm going to sleep !!! I 'll read your answer tomorrow). thank you again. C-IMZADI-4 21:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC) ::Yes, you can use the same template for all "types" of this banner. I overwrote the content you added to fr:Modèle:UniversMiroir(B), but it would of course make sense to move this template to the french translation of "article type". As the page describes, you can then use the different types by adding a parameter to the template, like or . ::The text is in english right now, but you can translate that by changing just the text part of the template page. To translate the template documentation, go to fr:Modèle:UniversMiroir(B)/doc. -- Cid Highwind 21:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC) sorry but I don't understand how access to template codes for overwrite in french !!! now the page shows result but not codes line by line. If I use I make in english. How change that for put french ??? I'm not specialist thank you for patience and understanding. A plus tard merci C-IMZADI-4 20:51, September 1, 2009 (UTC) :sorry again me, I found (i believe) I try my translate and if I fail, I'll ask you again... can you wait ? thanks C-IMZADI-4 20:55, September 1, 2009 (UTC) :can you see my fr version. My picture is not in the band... thanksC-IMZADI-4 08:02, September 2, 2009 (UTC) ::If you are changing the type name, you will have to change that name in the CSS file as well. I did that here. -- Cid Highwind 10:17, September 2, 2009 (UTC) Alternate reality I don't have a clue how these banners work, so I'll post this here. We should probably change the banner from "New timeline" to "alternate reality", since the latter is what we've ended up using everywhere (as the only canon description). Also, the bit about "Name and appearance of this sub-template are not final. This template is not to be used until a title has been agreed." is somewhat outdated, since it has been used everywhere. ;-)– Cleanse ( talk | ) 02:58, April 21, 2010 (UTC) :I'm all for reopening this, as the the term "alternate reality" is used far more than "new timeline". I know there was a big hoopla over this right after the film came out, but we could at least continue that discussion here. - 03:29, April 21, 2010 (UTC) ::The past discussions are here and, conveniently stored away, somewhere here. Please read those pages, and all the wonderful explanations about how various names might not really apply to the situation. -- Cid Highwind 10:31, April 21, 2010 (UTC) Sheesh, no need to bring up that hoopla again. We've gone with "alternate reality" as our terminology for months now, it's canon, let's stick with it.– Cleanse ( talk | ) 11:02, April 21, 2010 (UTC) ::Well... with the same strange reasoning, I might say that this template has been using the term "new timeline" for months, so let's stick with that. And why not? - the template "has been used everywhere", after all...? -- Cid Highwind 11:54, April 21, 2010 (UTC) :If I may interject with a different line of reasoning. is what we use for the mirror universe on this template, and other templates use it as well ( ), while the actual articles use (mirror) as the disambiguation ( Hoshi Sato (mirror) ). is for the alternate reality, while other templates use "alt" ( ) and the pages use (alternate reality) for the disambiguation ( Spock (alternate reality) ). This is confusing, as both New Timeline and Alternate Reality are being used, albeit from a different POV. If everything else related to Star Trek is using the AR disambiguation, why shouldn't this as well? - 21:14, April 21, 2010 (UTC) ::Not to sound too defensive, but that reasoning doesn't lead us anywhere, either. Confusion with the naming, if such exists, would be avoided by using "new timeline" throughout just as much as it would by using "alternate reality". It's a reason to eventually come to some conclusion, but not a reason for or against any specific one. Actually, with a more distanced view now that the film has been out for a year, I think, even more than before, that "new timeline" screams "Star Trek '09" much more than "alternate reality" does. -- Cid Highwind 21:31, April 21, 2010 (UTC) I hardly think pointing out that "alternate reality" was at least used in canon, unlike other fan-made terms such as "new timeline", is strange reasoning. But yes, the fact that all substantive content – references in background sections, the article, the disambiguation – have used the "AR" term for awhile now, and has become established, is significant. The most important thing is that we be consistent. Rather than move dozens of pages, we can just change the wording on this one template...– Cleanse ( talk | ) 23:46, April 21, 2010 (UTC) This page can only be edited by admins The cascading protection on the AOL talk pages prevents anyone from editing who isn't an admin. The protection level should be changed. --bp 03:20, April 21, 2010 (UTC) Something wrong with coding... On the Memory Gamma wiki we use a similar template for who the author of a page is. When Wikia changed the design on wikis, this template stopped working correctly, the template started being covered up by the page. Is there anything that I can do to fix this? -- 21:55, December 29, 2010 (UTC) :You will probably also need to update the script - see MediaWiki:Common.js (section "Articletype positioning"). -- Cid Highwind 11:04, December 30, 2010 (UTC) ::Thanks. 17:52, December 30, 2010 (UTC) How do I make the thing? How do you put in the backgrounds for this template? I'm trying to do something similar on Galactic Crucibles Wiki but I'm not having any luck searching for assistance on Community Central because they keep on telling me to access the Common.css page, which I can't, because I don't have admin rights. Is it possible to add the background images without accessing Common.css? ::Thanks, :: 21:16, May 5, 2013 (UTC) :No, you have to use a CSS and JS page to get them to work. - 05:44, May 6, 2013 (UTC) Retcons Continuing the discussion from here, here is a preliminary idea for a banner image that could be used for the retconned articles. I'm pretty limited in what I can do right now, so it's not great, but I think an original image fading to a remastered one would be a pretty good starting place. As for the text, I was thinking something like this: :Retcon article :covers information that was retroactively changed Thoughts? - 22:42, May 14, 2013 (UTC) :If I understand the talk page you linked to correctly, this category is meant specifically for things that were explicitly written "out of existence" (like Kermit T. Frog as a member of the Raymond family). However, so far our stance on TOS-R changes was to somewhat gloss over visual differences between old models and new CGI and accept both as "valid" at the same time. Unless that has changed (discussed where?), I think we shouldn't use exactly that (basically two valid "personas" of a ship) to express the idea of a retcon. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 22:58, May 14, 2013 (UTC) :Different idea: we could use an image showing something abstract like a character trait that was later retconned. What came to my mind was the image of Spock smiling at some weird blue plants in The Cage: http://tos.trekcore.com/hd/albums/1x00hd/thecagehd0473.jpg. It doesn't necessarily have to be exactly this image, of course, but I think it gets across the idea of a retcon nicely. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 23:08, May 14, 2013 (UTC) How to deal with retcons is still kinda been nebulous, since the recent forum discussion, the , and the discussions about how to use the category doesn't really result in a clear guideline. What I'm going with is: both versions are still "valid/canon", with the conflict between the two resulting in the remastered version being the "in-universe" version, while the original is "moved" to a recton page, which can be written "in-universe" or not. The retcon page would also collect any info on the change in one location, resulting in less duplication over multiple pages. The "retconned but canon" discussion on the category talk page could continue until we get something that could be added to the content policy. As for the image, that idea could work. The only thing I think might be an issue with that particular one is that Spock seems to smile quite a lot, at least in my memory. - (on an unsecure connection) 06:01, May 15, 2013 (UTC) :Spock smiles? A lot? Blasphemy! :) Seriously, if that image doesn't quite work, other aspects that were retconned are Klingon makeup (image perhaps from ENT, where a Klingon loses his ridges), Trill makeup (do we have an image of the makeup test for Jadzia?), or Klingons as Federation members (image: the view screen image from an early TNG episode, showing Federation and Klingon logos side by side). --Cid Highwind (talk) 11:46, May 15, 2013 (UTC) We do indeed have the makeup test for Dax, though the quality needs a bump up if it were to be used. While we could use the makeup test image (since Jadzia doesn't have that look), I'm not sure any other images of that makeup could be used, because the TNG Trill makeup shouldn't get it's own page. It clearly is a retcon and should be mentioned on that page, but it wasn't actually "removed" from continuity. The TNG Trill are like the laser pistols from "The Cage", as opposed to the 79th deck of the Enterprise-A, problematic, but not to the point The individual pages, as I see it, are for things that can't both be in-universe because one "replaces" the other. Of course, the word phaser written over the word laser by a smiling Spock wearing the Federation and Klingon emblems side by side is, IMO, the perfect MAlf, or April fools, version of this. :) - 18:47, May 15, 2013 (UTC) :Bonus points if you manage to additionally make that an animated gif, for extra annoyance! :) --Cid Highwind (talk) 19:49, May 15, 2013 (UTC)